Support NeoGAF

[Ashes]

Steal from the poor bitches. Never mind that it's the coldest fucking winter for ages...

 

[travisbickle]

I think Miles Quaritch is taking the piss about who in society takes advantage of the state and an individual's labour. Is it big business or the Daily Mail defined 'scrounger'.

 

[Rubbish King]

Man the job situation in England is pretty poor


Need to get to UNI soon I guess

You are right dude, no point even trying eh?

Aren't there are free college courses for guys in your position? My mate recently lost his job and jumped straight on one.

duuuuuude


whhhhhhaaaaat

 

[CyclopsRock]

There are a few dichotomies being discussed in this thread that I think aren't really relevant. This is a small part of IDSs plan, which in total will take a long time to come to fruition. the actual problem is not that the cost of welfare in the UK is too high - though it does comprise an enormous part of our budget, so excluding it from any cuts (along with the NHS, typically) mean that the other departments get hit doubly as hard - it is that it ends up acting as a disincentive to work because the marginal tax rates become so high.

Quite a few people from overseas in this thread have been asking what welfare is worth here - well, it's basically impossible to answer with any degree of accuracy because at any given time, depending on your personal circumstances, you could be eligible for about 13 different benefits or 'credits'. However, none of them talk to one another. They were all designed to solve a specific problem - housing benefit, disability benefit, child benefit, job seekers benefit etc - as piecemeal solutions. The problem is that none of them taper, and they all disappear at slightly different but more or less the same point when you begin to earn. The upshot of this is that when you get a job, if it isn't paying that well there are cases where people have actually ended up bringing home less whilst working than when they weren't. Far more common, though, was an effective tax rate of 70-80%. In a situation like this, it isn't a matter of anyone being lazy or feckless - you'd have to be an idiot to actually go to work. The system is at fault there, not the people. These changes are the first step in rearranging the system into a universal benefit system - where your circumstances are viewed holistically and you get a single payment, not a bunc of different ones. It also tapers off rather than being binary, which means you won't get those enormous effective tax rates.

But CyclopsRock! There are no jobs! It doesn't matter what the incentive structure is like if there are no jobs!

Well, ignoring for a moment that the UK currently have more people employed than at any time in its history, there's the fact hat during the Labour years (I say that purely because it's the data I've got - I know that this trend has continued through the coalition years, though) that the number of jobs in the UK increased by approximately 2 million. The number of people employed In the UK who were born outside of the UK increased by over 1.9 million. This isn't very surprising. Between the EU and the Commonwealth, there are quite a lot of ways to get into the UK to work and most of these people are not entitled to the same benefits as British born people, and so that incentive structure and effective tax rates above do not exist. For them, they either have to take the job or go home. Employers know this, which makes them more inclined to hire immigrants, and why in central London you'll struggle to find a Starbucks, Caffe Nero, Costa, Pret, EAT etc with literally a single British person working there - because, for the cost of living in a commutable distance, the low wages offered by unskilled work simply doesn't give you a better lifestyle than not working, because of those aforementioned effective tax rates. This is even more the case in areas with high property prices, because the loss of housing benefit contributes an even larger sum.

Please don't interpret this as an anti-immigration post. I'm personally fully in favour of it, I just don't think we shold ignore the effects it has on the labour market. These steps taken so far are (not all, but mostly) with the goal of arriving at a universal benefit system which I think is absolutely vital to actually solving the problem with our welfare system, rather than just constantly kicking the can down the road by adding a little payment here or a tax credit there.


Finally, re: the spare room thing, no, it's not 'forcing families presumably onto the streets' - its saying that if the government is paying for your housing, don't get more bedrooms than you need, because there are people out there in worse economic situations who really DO need it. if someone moves out of your house, yes, that means you either have to take the hit on your housing benefit or downsize. That's annoying, but it's hard to figure that the other side of the argument - that the comfort of not having to move house and having a spare room for when someone comes to visit is worth more to one family than the extra bedroom to another that really needs it - is in the right. If you want that flexibility, I'm afraid you'll need to rent privately. As long as you're relying on the government to pay your rent, I don't think it is unreasonable that it is done in the most efficient way possible.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I often wonder how much tax revenue all those self employed people who bolster the employment figures actually contribute to the economy. Or, is it simply a case of people using a little known about loophole to claim benefits and suckle from the socialist teat?

 

[CyclopsRock]

I often wonder how much tax revenue all those self employed people who bolster the employment figures actually contribute to the economy. Or, is it simply a case of people using a little known about loophole to claim benefits and suckle from the socialist teat?

Until today I was self employed. I contributed quite a lot.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Until today I was self employed. I contributed quite a lot.

How much suckling did you do through working tax credits? Tax allowances?

 

[Pie and Beans]

The cuts as usual are far too savage, in many positions unworkable (expecting tons of low income families to move houses with no money changing hands into properties that simply don't exist), and just ill informed.

The solutions to benefit fraud were better more comprehensive checks but made by compassionate human beings not ruthless lizard people, and certainly not broad sweeping system changes in an attempt to choke out all the bugs with one nation sized cloud of toxic death.

All this will do is create a furious Depression level poverty stricken underclass that will incite huge national riots within a couple of years. Who cares though, it'll be Labour's problem by then eh Dave?

 

[CyclopsRock]

How much suckling did you do through working tax credits? Tax allowances?

I haven't received a payment from the government since I was unemployed immediately after university, way back. As it stands, I have to do my tax return soon and I'll probably be sending Georgey boy a payment of around £9-10k including national insurance, but it depends how many reductions in profit I can crowbar in there.

 

[surly]

The cuts as usual are far too savage, in many positions unworkable (expecting tons of low income families to move houses with no money changing hands into properties that simply don't exist), and just ill informed.

The solutions to benefit fraud were better more comprehensive checks but made by compassionate human beings not ruthless lizard people, and certainly not broad sweeping system changes in an attempt to choke out all the bugs with one nation sized cloud of toxic death.

All this will do is create a furious Depression level poverty stricken underclass that will incite huge national riots within a couple of years. Who cares though, it'll be Labour's problem by then eh Dave?

Hey, it's not all bad. They're cutting the income tax rate for the highest earners in the country by 5% at the end of this week.

 

[Liberty4all]

There are a few dichotomies being discussed in this thread that I think aren't really relevant. This is a small part of IDSs plan, which in total will take a long time to come to fruition. the actual problem is not that the cost of welfare in the UK is too high - though it does comprise an enormous part of our budget, so excluding it from any cuts (along with the NHS, typically) mean that the other departments get hit doubly as hard - it is that it ends up acting as a disincentive to work because the marginal tax rates become so high.

Quite a few people from overseas in this thread have been asking what welfare is worth here - well, it's basically impossible to answer with any degree of accuracy because at any given time, depending on your personal circumstances, you could be eligible for about 13 different benefits or 'credits'. However, none of them talk to one another. They were all designed to solve a specific problem - housing benefit, disability benefit, child benefit, job seekers benefit etc - as piecemeal solutions. The problem is that none of them taper, and they all disappear at slightly different but more or less the same point when you begin to earn. The upshot of this is that when you get a job, if it isn't paying that well there are cases where people have actually ended up bringing home less whilst working than when they weren't. Far more common, though, was an effective tax rate of 70-80%. In a situation like this, it isn't a matter of anyone being lazy or feckless - you'd have to be an idiot to actually go to work. The system is at fault there, not the people. These changes are the first step in rearranging the system into a universal benefit system - where your circumstances are viewed holistically and you get a single payment, not a bunc of different ones. It also tapers off rather than being binary, which means you won't get those enormous effective tax rates.

But CyclopsRock! There are no jobs! It doesn't matter what the incentive structure is like if there are no jobs!

Well, ignoring for a moment that the UK currently have more people employed than at any time in its history, there's the fact hat during the Labour years (I say that purely because it's the data I've got - I know that this trend has continued through the coalition years, though) that the number of jobs in the UK increased by approximately 2 million. The number of people employed In the UK who were born outside of the UK increased by over 1.9 million. This isn't very surprising. Between the EU and the Commonwealth, there are quite a lot of ways to get into the UK to work and most of these people are not entitled to the same benefits as British born people, and so that incentive structure and effective tax rates above do not exist. For them, they either have to take the job or go home. Employers know this, which makes them more inclined to hire immigrants, and why in central London you'll struggle to find a Starbucks, Caffe Nero, Costa, Pret, EAT etc with literally a single British person working there - because, for the cost of living in a commutable distance, the low wages offered by unskilled work simply doesn't give you a better lifestyle than not working, because of those aforementioned effective tax rates. This is even more the case in areas with high property prices, because the loss of housing benefit contributes an even larger sum.

Please don't interpret this as an anti-immigration post. I'm personally fully in favour of it, I just don't think we shold ignore the effects it has on the labour market. These steps taken so far are (not all, but mostly) with the goal of arriving at a universal benefit system which I think is absolutely vital to actually solving the problem with our welfare system, rather than just constantly kicking the can down the road by adding a little payment here or a tax credit there.


Finally, re: the spare room thing, no, it's not 'forcing families presumably onto the streets' - its saying that if the government is paying for your housing, don't get more bedrooms than you need, because there are people out there in worse economic situations who really DO need it. if someone moves out of your house, yes, that means you either have to take the hit on your housing benefit or downsize. That's annoying, but it's hard to figure that the other side of the argument - that the comfort of not having to move house and having a spare room for when someone comes to visit is worth more to one family than the extra bedroom to another that really needs it - is in the right. If you want that flexibility, I'm afraid you'll need to rent privately. As long as you're relying on the government to pay your rent, I don't think it is unreasonable that it is done in the most efficient way possible.

That explains a lot.

So am I right in assuming with these "credits" somebody could reasonably take home up to 600 - 700 pounds a month while on the various doles?

In Canada it's approx 600 dollars a month period. That includes housing allowance. That is about 300 pounds a month or so. If you have a working partner you are entitled to 0. To be fair Canada does have a decent Employment Insurance system (different from welfare). You automatically pay into EI while working, and it's there for you if you lose your job. It pays out about 1400 - 1600 dollars a month for a period of 18 - 50 or so weeks.

I'm just trying to visualize in my head the differences between different national safety net systems.

 

[Starwolf_UK]

I'm usually very pro-social programs cause I dont wanna see people on hard times go hungry or kids sleeping in the street, but when you see healthy guys collecting a check and partying while you go to work everyday...it makes you pissed and you start to despise those who get a check no matter the circumstances.

The problem in the UK is most people on benefits do go to work. They may be in the form of tax credit or housing benefit but everyone demonised the minority who cuise through life due to abusing the systems in place. Everyone else ends up paying.

It sorts of brings me back to the problems of property prices are absurd and minimum wage is fast becoming state sponsored poverty (if a person goes to work and then needs benefits from the satate to make ends meet, suggests the job isn't paying enough which I thought was the opposite of what the minimum wage was supposed to do).

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

I'm 27, unemployed and living with my mother who is barely better off herself.

To say I'm unsatisfied with my life would be an understatement.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Hey, it's not all bad. They're cutting the income tax rate for the highest earners in the country by 5% at the end of this week.

The presumption of course that now the super rich will spend that extra 5% on maids, butlers, servants, and shoe-shiners.

Combined with changes forcing people into cramped 1 bedroom super-flats and then plodding them out to Tesco's for mandatory slave labour and thus pretty much recreating the Dickensian workhouses of old, its quite an amazing job this coalition government has done trying to drag us back 100 years.

 

[CyclopsRock]

That explains a lot.

So am I right in assuming with these "credits" somebody could reasonably take home up to 600 - 700 pounds a month while on the various doles?

In Canada it's approx 600 dollars a month period. That includes housing allowance. That is about 300 pounds a month or so. If you have a working partner you are entitled to 0. To be fair Canada does have a decent Employment Insurance system (different from welfare). You automatically pay into EI while working, and it's there for you if you lose your job. It pays out about 1400 - 1600 dollars a month for a period of 18 - 50 or so weeks.

I'm just trying to visualize in my head the differences between different national safety net systems.

Well the government recently put through some legislation that limited the total amount a household can get in benefits a year to £26,500 (this is the mean household income in the UK, the idea being that it shouldn't be possible to 'earn' more than the average income without working, though that's fairly arbitrary). This has some negative side effects, though, such as some people with disabilities having large costs due to the help they need etc. but there are some allowances for this, depending on your circumstances.

We have a national insurance system, and it used to be like you described - it was used to pay for sick pay and unemployment payments - but now it's basically just another tax pot. The only way that your specific contributions have effects are for your state pension when you retire. Even then, it's only a sliding scale between one number and another number, depending on how many years you've contributed to National Insurance.

 

[surly]

The presumption of course that now the super rich will spend that extra 5% on maids, butlers, servants, and shoe-shiners.

Many of the super rich were probably using one of the several open loopholes to avoid paying that highest tax rate anyway: -

In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.

This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.

The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.

It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...fficial-statistics-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

 

[Plasma]

As a note I attended all of my signing appointments and a secondary weekly appointment with a useless company who's sole purpose is to get me into work something which they did terribly.

I had the same thing when I was on the dole so glad I ended up getting a job so I could get away from them. If the government are looking to save money the first thing they should do is stop paying these companies to "help" people get jobs because they're aren't any better than the useless advisers at the job centre.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I had the same thing when I was on the dole so glad I ended up getting a job so I could get away from them. If the government are looking to save money the first thing they should do is stop paying these companies to "help" people get jobs because they're aren't any better than the useless advisers at the job centre.

But then the people who work for those companies would become unemployed.

 

[defel]

Many of the super rich were probably using one of the several open loopholes to avoid paying that highest tax rate anyway: -


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...fficial-statistics-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

Remember that many people shifted income from 2010-11 to 2009-10 in anticipation of the tax. Total income among those in the £150,000+ income group was larger in 2009-10 than 2010-11 for this reason. We should expect the number of declared millionaires in 2009-10 to be uncharacteristically large. Its very difficult to work out the overall effect of the 50p tax rate just two years after the fact - spending patterns take some time to even out and settle down and from the research Ive read the results of the 50p tax are ambiguous.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Remember that many people shifted income from 2010-11 to 2009-10 in anticipation of the tax. Total income among those in the £150,000+ income group was larger in 2009-10 than 2010-11 for this reason. We should expect the number of declared millionaires in 2009-10 to be uncharacteristically large. Its very difficult to work out the overall effect of the 50p tax rate just two years after the fact - spending patterns take some time to even out and settle down and from the research Ive read the results of the 50p tax are ambiguous.

This is all true, but it's also a bit more complicated than what the tax itself raises - all taxes affect incentive structures. If the top rate of tax were 99%, you could talk about the impact of that bracket tax revenue, but obviously it would have greater effects in the economy, business etc. going from 50 to 45 is smaller of course, but there is greater nuance than just the actual bracket itself, IMO.

 

[kitch9]

I'm 27, unemployed and living with my mother who is barely better off herself.

To say I'm unsatisfied with my life would be an understatement.

In 2005 unemployment peaked to a low of just under 5%, it's now at just under 7.5%. As recessions go this one isn't actually a bad one with regards unemployment, it just feels like it because that is what the media is telling us day in and day out. This employment market is still mobile and only slightly more competitive than 2005 it just feels a lot worse because the media will not stfu about every fraction of a percentage point that changes in insignificant stuff where they miss out the bigger picture every time.

Same as government spending hasn't actually dropped that much even though the media would have you believe they'd shut shop completely.

Same as with interest rates and the various tax cuts that most peoples disposable income hasn't dropped by much or will have actually gone up, again the media will have you believe different and because of it we all feel skint.

Recessions are mostly a frame of mind for the majority, until that mindset changes we all end feeling miserable and useless even though there's not actually much difference.

 

[itxaka]

Are scottish programs different? Because I remember when I was living there some people were taking unfair advantage of it, they paid like 300 pounds per month for working less than X hours per week and up to 500 pounds for the housing. It was incredibly awesome for those in need and incredibly sad how people took advantage, especially seeing people from my country using it and basically saying the goverment was stupid for giving out money. Like go to fucking hell you idiots, there is people in need of it. Boils my blood

 

[Liberty4all]

Are scottish programs different? Because I remember when I was living there some people were taking unfair advantage of it, they paid like 300 pounds per month for working less than X hours per week and up to 500 pounds for the housing. It was incredibly awesome for those in need and incredibly sad how people took advantage, especially seeing people from my country using it and basically saying the goverment was stupid for giving out money. Like go to fucking hell you idiots, there is people in need of it. Boils my blood

Wow that's like 1600 dollars a month.

Even with cost of living difference that seems like a lot?

 

[Acorn]

Um the benefits system isn't devolved. UK Govt sets rules for us (Scotland).

Edit : I wish it was and we had full fiscal autonomy (whether inside or outside the union in a federal system or whatever).

 

[Hindle]

If they keep lowering the benefits, then eventually people are going to end up on the street. Myself and my family included. It's saddening that they think people cba working, that I'm we're happy with this.

It's strange they're lowering benefits whilst companies and jobs are going bust, it's like what the fuck.

 

[Gregorn]

I'm 20, unemployed and still live with my parents. My JSA money is all just going into my bank and sitting there doing nothing, I've got nothing to spend it on, I don't even want to buy video games with it. All I want is to save up enough money to move from my tiny village.

I must have applied for 50 jobs this year so far, and haven't heard back from any of them. My local supermarket had fourty people apply for one position, and this fat old guy got it. I have no idea what I'm doing wrong.

 

[mrklaw]

I'm probably going to get grief for this, but I don't see the fuss over the ' bedroom tax'. On the face of it, it makes sense to try and match council housing with the correct sized families. If your kids have LE home you don't need so much space, and maybe a larger family could use it?

I do think that your housing benefit shouldn't be cut unless the council at least offers you alternative housing near your current house, otherwise you dont have an alternative (although having said that, plenty of people move around the country for work so why assume people have a right to be where they want to be?)

 

[daviyoung]

I'm 20, unemployed and still live with my parents. My JSA money is all just going into my bank and sitting there doing nothing, I've got nothing to spend it on, I don't even want to buy video games with it. All I want is to save up enough money to move from my tiny village.

I must have applied for 50 jobs this year so far, and haven't heard back from any of them. My local supermarket had fourty people apply for one position, and this fat old guy got it. I have no idea what I'm doing wrong.

learn to drive

 

[dogmaan]

Um the benefits system isn't devolved. UK Govt sets rules for us (Scotland).

Edit : I wish it was and we had full fiscal autonomy (whether inside or outside the union in a federal system or whatever).

How about instead you fight for your system for the whole of the UK?

Cloistering away and leaving the rest of the UK to deal with this Tory Government alone, makes me feel like your end game is "fuck you, i've got mine".

I'll be okay here in Scotland with SAAS, free prescriptions and my water bills being part of my council tax etc, but I do feel that the benefits we have in Scotland, should be available to the rest of the UK.

Seriously Scotland already has it REALLY good in comparison to the rest of the UK, the fact that a lot of scottish people are content with severing ties and leaving what's left of the UK alone with the conservatives is really pissing me off.

 

[defel]

I'm probably going to get grief for this, but I don't see the fuss over the ' bedroom tax'. On the face of it, it makes sense to try and match council housing with the correct sized families. If your kids have LE home you don't need so much space, and maybe a larger family could use it?

I do think that your housing benefit shouldn't be cut unless the council at least offers you alternative housing near your current house, otherwise you dont have an alternative (although having said that, plenty of people move around the country for work so why assume people have a right to be where they want to be?)

Save up what you can and look for work and travel opportunities. Thats what I would do.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I haven't received a payment from the government since I was unemployed immediately after university, way back. As it stands, I have to do my tax return soon and I'll probably be sending Georgey boy a payment of around £9-10k including national insurance, but it depends how many reductions in profit I can crowbar in there.

Pfft.

You're the worst kind. A suckling parasite who refuses to admit to his addiction to the socialist teat.

I'm 20, unemployed and still live with my parents. My JSA money is all just going into my bank and sitting there doing nothing, I've got nothing to spend it on, I don't even want to buy video games with it. All I want is to save up enough money to move from my tiny village.

I must have applied for 50 jobs this year so far, and haven't heard back from any of them. My local supermarket had fourty people apply for one position, and this fat old guy got it. I have no idea what I'm doing wrong.

Well, you have to ask yourself. Why would they hire you for minimum wage when they'll eventually be hire for about £1 - £2 an hour through the government's back to work scheme.

 

[Verendus]

This is a really silly move they're doing. Long-term effects on the people most affected are not going to be pleasant.

 

[Acorn]

How about instead you fight for your system for the whole of the UK?

Cloistering away and leaving the rest of the UK to deal with this Tory Government alone, makes me feel like your end game is "fuck you, i've got mine".

I'll be okay here in Scotland with SAAS, free prescriptions and my water bills being part of my council tax etc, but I do feel that the benefits we have in Scotland, should be available to the rest of the UK.

Seriously Scotland already has it REALLY good in comparison to the rest of the UK, the fact that a lot of scottish people are content with severing ties and leaving what's left of the UK alone with the conservatives is really pissing me off.

My natural instinct is to stay within in the UK, but I do not want to have people who do not represent my country making policies that is completely the opposite of what our country stands for.

We are a social democratic country, England is a conservative country (As shown by the fact if we go, there will likely never be another labour govt for the foreseeable future and it would be the death of the labour party as it exists today).

And fight what exactly? England as a majority votes for these type of policies therefore they are getting what they want(and more probably would be happy to completely strip out all of the post WW2 social settlements - even more than they are now).

We wouldn't be "leaving" anyone with conservatives, they still live in a democratic country. They would live with the government they chose as they do now - and seem quite happy to continually vote Tory, I believe there wouldn't have been in labour govt in years if it wasn't for Scotland voting Labour.

Basically everyone gets what they want.

EDIT- And the end game for me is stopping the conservatives from harming society and the only way that can happen is in a independent or federalised Scotland as this is what England votes for. I'm naturally a Unionist but as the govt drags on, I more and more lean towards saying fuck this shit.

 

[ghst]

depressing people in to employment. how very english.

 

[Liberty4all]

I'm 20, unemployed and still live with my parents. My JSA money is all just going into my bank and sitting there doing nothing, I've got nothing to spend it on, I don't even want to buy video games with it. All I want is to save up enough money to move from my tiny village.

I must have applied for 50 jobs this year so far, and haven't heard back from any of them. My local supermarket had fourty people apply for one position, and this fat old guy got it. I have no idea what I'm doing wrong.

Wait ... You can get government money in the UK even when living at home with parents?

 

[Liberty4all]

What is council housing?

 

[radioheadrule83]

I'm not going to argue over the individual policies. I think some are well meaning and might even work, but equally I think some are punitive to people who are already pretty hard done by.

I think we'll have riots again soon.

 

[daviyoung]

What is council housing?

and ever-increasing rarity

 

[ToxicAdam]

I will never understand why aid isn't tied to some kind of work. I'm not talking about a 40 hour work week, but just a couple 4 hour days where the person performs some kind of service that betters the community. It can be call center work, janitorial work, simple maintainence or whatever. Not only does it improve the quality of life of the area the person lives in, but it gives them at least some semblance of direction and self-worth of doing something.

It's quite easy, for even honest people, to become disconnected and aimless when you are receiving money without doing anything for it.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Wait ... You can get government money in the UK even when living at home with parents?

A lot of parents can't afford to or simply refuse to support their adult children. So it falls to the state to provide a means for them to get out into the world, help them get a job so they can help pay for their parents state pension.

 

[Boom Boom Pow]

I'm 22 I live in an area of England with the highest unemployment rate and I'm currently out of work.

My "Dole" per fortnight was £100. That is until I tired to claim starting January 28th. First the Job Center submitted my claim incorrectly entirely independent of myself. Then 3 weeks later i was told I needed to submit a reassment to cover the Job Center's mistake which i did promptly. Then I was told after 3 weeks of hearing nothing despite constant phone calls that I needed to submit my girlfriend who lives with me earnings details. Which again I promptly did. Cut to last week when I get a phone call saying because of her earnings and my status of a Joint claim that I would not qualify for Job Seekers allowance. For reference she works a min wage job with a maximum of 13 hours per week due to her University work taking up the majority of time.

Her wages are typically £300 but due to the fact she technically gets £1000 student loan 3 times a year (with only one of these payments left) "My income is too high to qualify for JSA"

For reference I live in a relatively cheap private rented property of £350 per month but simple math means I just cannot live with out getting into serious debt fast.

Income £300
GF Wage £300

Outgoings £510
Rent £350
Gas £30 (being optimistic)
Electric £30 (being optimistic)
Food £100 (2 people, 2 Pets 1 month)

As a note I attended all of my signing appointments and a secondary weekly appointment with a useless company who's sole purpose is to get me into work something which they did terribly.

I'm in no way lacking in qualifications I own a SIA License for security work, Iv got decent grades and my CV is full of experience in both customer service, shop and technical work.

Under the new scheme I have to pay an extra £100 in council tax.

Lets actually look at the changes with this "welfare overhaul"



Thinly veiled government money grab, These people were exempt because they simply could not pay that.



PR speak, No new jobs will ever come from this and "keep more of what you earn" is never going to happen National Insurance and Tax are not going to change in the slightest.



So lets get this straight, Not enough homes so your going to make the current homes unaffordable for the people in them with low incomes. So they are going to move out into the street I presume while others with more moderate incomes replace them

.

This shows exactly how this system is not only flawed its in place to punish those with low income and earn the government more. 200 Million extra per month for the rich kids in parliament to take helicopters to their dinner dates which the low income households struggle to pay for dinner.



Sounds reasonable until you understand that £500 is barely enough to last 2 bill paying adults a month let alone a family of 4+ who have more food to buy and more clothes to buy and a bigger home to pay for.



The welfare system in the UK was useless to start with, It's problems lay with abuse not the people who are actively seeking work or in legitimate need of it. Each case needs independent handling "broad sweeping changes" only serve to punish those are require it when those who don't still thrive.

why do you have pets if you have no money?

 

[defel]

A lot of parents can't afford to or simply refuse to support their adult children. So it falls to the state to provide a means for them to get out into the world, help them get a job so they can help pay for their parents state pension.

What evidence do you have for that?

 

[Miles Quaritch]

What is council housing?

and ever-increasing rarity

I laughed.

I'm a little ashamed to admit it, but I know of two people who bought council homes back in the 80's for a pittance and are now raking in the £££ by renting the homes back to the government.

They are positively licking their lips at the prospect of another social housing sale. It's an incredibly lucrative source of income if you can get your hands on social housing in areas where there's a critical shortage of homes.

 

[Acorn]

Task for everyone who thinks this is about benefit fraud, look up the DWP's own estimate for benefit fraud. (Hint It isn't anywhere near what the Mail, Telegraph or Sun would have you believe, not even in the same universe)

 

[PJV3]

What is council housing?

The tories threw it under a bus, turned homes into profit making ventures, and are now complaining that housing benefit costs too much.

Short sighted, common sense cunts.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I will never understand why aid isn't tied to some kind of work. I'm not talking about a 40 hour work week, but just a couple 4 hour days where the person performs some kind of service that betters the community. It can be call center work, janitorial work, simple maintainence or whatever. Not only does it improve the quality of life of the area the person lives in, but it gives them at least some semblance of direction and self-worth of doing something.

It's quite easy, for even honest people, to become disconnected and aimless when you are receiving money without doing anything for it.

Because governments are too stupid to safeguard such things from exploitation and do the small hour here or there that you're talking about. And how do you stop a few hours here or there becoming a slippery slope to a full working week anyway? We've had trials of forced labour for continued welfare here and people just end up packing bags in Morrison's or something equally fruitless. In most cases, benefitting nobody but said Morrison's or equiv companies at taxpayer expense. Its like the government paying their poorest employees' wages. A mans labour should be paid, period - work-for-welfare schemes shouldn't be a means to undermine our minimum wage law, or a means to put poor people into bondage. And thats what it would be here, without proper care.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

What evidence do you have for that?

What? It's common bloody sense. Do you really believe that a lot of parents are able or happy about the prospect of spending their savings/extra income supporting an adult child whose still living at home?

 

[radioheadrule83]

I laughed.

I'm a little ashamed to admit it, but I know of two people who bought council homes back in the 80's for a pittance and are now raking in the £££ by renting the homes back to the government.

They are positively licking their lips at the prospect of another social housing sale. It's an incredibly lucrative source of income if you can get your hands on social housing in areas where there's a critical shortage of homes.

Power to them, but its disgusting. We shouldn't be paying claimants who in turn only pay a private landlord. I wish we'd just build a fuckload more housing tbh. Housing should be a roof over your head, not a commodity you collect to exploit others. I'd vote for anyone who committed to authorise the building of tens of millions of homes and give priority to first time buyers.

 

[Kelthink]

In 2005 unemployment peaked to a low of just under 5%, it's now at just under 7.5%. As recessions go this one isn't actually a bad one with regards unemployment, it just feels like it because that is what the media is telling us day in and day out. This employment market is still mobile and only slightly more competitive than 2005 it just feels a lot worse because the media will not stfu about every fraction of a percentage point that changes in insignificant stuff where they miss out the bigger picture every time.

Same as government spending hasn't actually dropped that much even though the media would have you believe they'd shut shop completely.

Same as with interest rates and the various tax cuts that most peoples disposable income hasn't dropped by much or will have actually gone up, again the media will have you believe different and because of it we all feel skint.

Recessions are mostly a frame of mind for the majority, until that mindset changes we all end feeling miserable and useless even though there's not actually much difference.

Wow, this is all dribbly bollocks.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Because governments are too stupid to safeguard such things from exploitation and do the small hour here or there that you're talking about. And how do you stop a few hours here or there becoming a slippery slope to a full working week anyway? We've had trials of forced labour for continued welfare here and people just end up packing bags in Morrison's or something equally fruitless. In most cases, benefitting nobody but said Morrison's or equiv companies at taxpayer expense. Its like the government paying their poorest employees' wages. A mans labour should be paid, period - work-for-welfare schemes shouldn't be a means to undermine our minimum wage law, or a means to put poor people into bondage. And thats what it would be here, without proper care.

Why do they have to work for private companies? Why can't they do things alongside other government workers? You would think every government office/service could use extra help in some way. From office workers, to call centers, to laborers and on and on.

Not to mention you would create more jobs for people to manage this program.